Legal Epic vs Apple

Legal The dust has settled from the three-week antitrust trial between Epic Games and Apple but the outcome has still yet to be decided.Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has warned that it will take some time to go through all the evidence — plus balance this matter with the thousands of other cases she’s handling — but has said she hopes to make a ruling “while the memory of the testimonies [and] the arguments are fresh.”With a similar mentality, it’s time for us to call on our panel of legal experts to get their final thoughts on this potentially industry-shaping trial — most of whom agree that both sides made a valiant effort in presenting their arguments.The Game Attorney’s Thomas Buscaglia said the Fortnite firm’s case was “certainly better than many expected,” noting that Apple did not help itself with some of its defending remarks.”It’s getting harder for platform holders to justify that 30% cut, and I think we will see these changes — either willingly, or by force of law” Angelo Alcid, Ludic Legal”Apple claiming that they have no idea what portion of their revenue or profit come from games on their app store is ludicrous,” he says. “Disingenuous arguments to the court do not further a party’s position. This is further exacerbated by their argument of ‘We need all this revenue to pay for security and privacy,’ which seemed more like a marketing pitch than an accurate reflection of their actual financials. Presenting a bad argument over and over does not make it good — just redundant.”Gamma Law managing partner David B. Hoppe commented on Epic’s positioning of itself as not just acting in self-interest but representing small developers and gamers everywhere against a greedy megacorporation — an attitude made clear by the codename ‘Project Liberty.'”While that may resonate with many people, it is not a basis for a legal decision or for, in effect, punishing a company for being successful,” he explains. “That’s especially true if it would result in complications and problems for consumers, and disrupt a service that seems to have worked very well for them.”Apple argues that technological incompatibility stokes competition. Players have choices as to how they play Fortnite and other games. The process seems to work well even though developers would like to earn more and consumers would like to pay less. That’s the way it is in any supplier/distributor/customer relationship.”There’s a heavy burden on the plaintiff in proving antitrust allegations that in my opinion Epic couldn’t meet. It’s not a problem with how they presented their case, but ultimately I don’t think Epic could legally support the proposition that Apple’s business model should be dismantled — Epic isn’t really asking for that, but that would be the effect.”Thomas Buscaglia, The Game AttorneyRichard Hoeg, managing partner of The Hoeg Law Firm, reiterated that Epic “always had the tougher case to make” but believes Apple presented itself as having the stronger argument during the trial itself.”Epic poked plenty of holes in Apple’s process highlighting security
Game Industry source